HAWG

MISSION STATEMENT
It is the mission of the Homeless Advocacy Working Group to assist in improving the conditions of human beings living on the street, in vehicles, in the open, and in unsafe shelters. HAWG insists, unconditionally, that "Housing is a Human Right" and demands that all persons have a right to dwell and to be housed, irrespective of shelter situation, economic ability, race, age, gender, disability, or other marginalized status, and must be treated always with courtesy, dignity, and respect.

Homeless Advocacy Working Group
meets the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month
4 to 6 pm on Zoom.

The ZOOM login is:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/4229143574?omn=89469326658 The Meeting ID: 422 914 3574

To receive the agenda in advance of the meeting, send your email address to <jamesevann at aol.com>.
You will be added to the HAWG listserv and will automatically receive future meeting announcements and related correspondence.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Due to the Pandemic -- which closed City Hall -- all HAWG meetings have been held virtually by ZOOM (and not at City Hall). Login information and HAWG meeting agendas and announcements are sent out by email.

Also, in early 2023, to avoid conflicts with critical meetings of the Council's "Life Enrichment Committee," HAWG changed its meeting days from 2nd & 4th Mondays to 1st & 3rd Mondays. However, during the Holiday period, HAWG meetings are on an irregular schedule.

Tuesday April 18th 2023
James Vann Day in the City of Oakland. A deserved tribute and recognition of his tireless advocacy for fair housing and homeless rights in Oakland. ShelterOak salutes James Vann for his mentorship, guidance, and HAWG advisory leadership.

Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG)

Five-Point Program to Ameliorate Homelessness in Oakland
During the 2023-24 Biennial Period

February 2023

The Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG) -- founded in Dec 2017 -- is a coalition of organizations and individuals dedicated to improving the conditions of human beings living on the street, in vehicles, in the open, and in unsafe shelters, and informal encampments. HAWG insists, unconditionally, that “Housing is a Human Right” and demands that all persons have a right to dwell and to be housed, irrespective of shelter situation, economic ability, race, age, gender, disability, or other marginalized status, and must be treated always with courtesy, dignity, and respect.
HAWG strongly contends -- for a multitude of reasons -- that providing "new housing" to solve homelessness will never happen. Instead, HAWG insists that the conditions suffered by unhoused people be immediately improved by the provision of temporary climate-proofed individual accommodations with a hard roof and lockable door as the starting point to renewal.
Accordingly, HAWG respectfully submits the following program that will enable the City to significantly and rapidly ameliorate the City's homelessness issues. Further, HAWG welcomes the opportunity to engage with City leaders to implement these five (5) points to improve the health, well-being, and dignity of Oakland's unsheltered residents while restoring and enhancing neighborhood visuals, aesthetics, and community pride.

I.  Improve Services, Sanitation Provisions, and Living Conditions at Unhoused and Vehicle Settlements
a.      Maintain and increase sanitation provisions at each encampment and vehicle settlement of four or more households by:· Continuing and improving weekly servicing and cleanup.
·        Providing potable water, porta-potties, hand-washing stations, Sharps containers, and sanitation supplies.
·        Conducting weekly site cleaning, including placing and servicing wheeled dumpsters at the settlements.     ·        deploying two (2) additional "illegal dumping cleanup crews" -- Assign crews to "districts" that each crew will "rove" three times each week for "reported" and "unreported" trash pickups.
b.   IMMEDIATELY ... “Stop the Sweeps” of encampments (unless required for emergencies or for critical public health and safety). Instead, direct budgeted funds to services, needs, and financial assistance.

II.  Establish an Aggressive Program of City Acquisition of Hotels, Motels, and Suitable Facilities to Increase the Inventory of Temporary & Transitional Housing & Accessible Accommodations
a.      Complete the acquisition of “Lake Merritt Lodge” to become a permanent housing resource, preferably as a joint venture with Alameda County and FEMA.
b.      Acquire 'The Best American Value Inn' (E 12th St & Lake Merritt Blvd), a financially weak appx 60-room motel, and the previously offered 'Travelers Hotel' (11th St & Franklin), an excellently situated and recently restored hotel.
c.       Urge Council Members to complete the City Council-established goal of installing one "Tiny House" village in each Council District. (San Jose recently embarked on a program to install 700 "tiny houses" this year.)
d.      Survey existing motels and SROs for suitability as transitional housing resources and possibilities of lease or purchase, including the previously considered 'Silver Dollar' and 'Mohr' Hotels (San Pablo Av). Establish a goal of completing at least 5 acquisitions or leases during the 2023-24, 2-year biennial periode.
e. Establish an active program of utilizing the County's “city preference” procedure to acquire tax-defaulted, foreclosed, and abandoned houses and buildings that are suitable for use as transitional housing resources.
f.        Investigate the potential for implementing “Converted Container” villages. Also, consider possible purchase of the 'American Steel Complex' on Mandela Parkway as a combined residential and "Safe Parking" settlement.

III.  Insitute Universal Enrollment of the Unhoused Population, and Initiate a Program of Assistance, Training, & Services to Financially Benefit the Unhoused Population
a.       Authorize a general program of enrolling every unhoused individual into HUD’s “Coordinated Entry (CE)” and “Continuum of Care (CoC)” programs to ensure comprehensive databases and to enable the provision of methodological assistance, wrap-around services, and preparation for re-entry to permanent housing.
b.      Provide for the input and involvement of resident occupants in the administration, management, and operating protocols of the acquired facilities and establish the goal of semi- or self-administration of each facility by resident occupants.
c.       Explore options to offset operating costs by replacing services provided by prior hotel personnel with unhoused persons or city staff. (If economical, dispense with internal meal service.) In addition, resident occupants who are able should contribute 20% of earnings, but not more than $100 monthly
d.      Initiate a program to train unhoused persons/groups to replace ineffective nonprofit contractors as administrators and managers of transitional facilities and settlements.
e.      Investigate the potential of transferring acquired transitional facilities to organized unhoused groups, including co-op formations, $1/year leases, and other innovative approaches.

IV.  Utilize an "Instant Remediation" Procedure at the North Gateway Parcel, and Increase the Number of "Safe Parking" Programs Throughout the City
a.      Employ a procedure of “instant remediation” at the Army Base's North Gateway Parcel to establish a "Safe Parking" program.
·        “Instant Remediation” (or “Rapid Mitigation”) involves "capping" the site, i.e., layering the contaminated parcel with two feet of clean soil & gravel, topped with one-inch thick hardtack or asphalt, and with adequate drainage. This method was used by Emeryville -- instead of contaminated soil removal -- which enabled rapid development of the Bay Street Commercial District.
·        Due to soil contamination, geographical isolation, and lack of public transit service, HAWG recommends that the North Gateway Parcel be developed solely as a "Safe Parking" program since unhoused occupants with operable vehicles are better able to access appointments and services.
b.       Establish a "Vehicle Assistance Program" of grants up to $3,000 per vehicle that may be expended toward needed DMV registration and for repairs to make vehicles operable.
c.      Identify, acquire, prepare, and implement at least two additional "Safe Parking" programs in other areas of the City during the biennial period.

V.  Provide sites for the installation of two “Manufactured Modular Campus Developments” (MMCDs)  Acquire or create two cleared sites -- a minimum of 4 to 5 acres each -- for the installation of two manufactured modular campus "pilot" developments (MMDCs).
·        MMCDs are factory-made of quickly implemented off-the-shelf technology. The modular components are immediately transported by ground to their intended sites, rapidly erected and ready for use. Municipal plumbing and electrical services must be provided and ready for hookup.
·        Each Campus provides approximately 150 individual and household units, with electrical power and plumbed water, restrooms and showers, community assembly room, kitchen and group dining, computer room, counseling rooms, employment training classrooms, exterior gathering spaces, on-site storage facility, dog run, reserved parking, and incorporated solar energy systems.
·        A HAWG member and activist has performed extensive research into MMCDs and can provide illustrations, sizes, and cost metrics for turn-key systems by several manufacturers.
·        Possible sites for MMCDs are 796 - 66th Ave and 906 - 66th Ave.

Characteristics & Guidelines
Co-Governed Homeless Encampments / Settlements
by the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG)
January 2021

The universal declaration: "Housing is a Human Right," is affirmation that all people -- regardless of one's station in life -- deserve to be sheltered in adequate and safe, and comfortable and convenient accommodations at costs they can afford.

The Crisis of “Homelessness”
Homelessness is an involuntary condition where people or households lack traditional shelter, personal space, privacy, and secure protection against climate, weather, or unsolicited harm. Typically, persons experiencing homelessness are community members who have lived in Oakland most their lives and who may have suffered a loss of income, or whose income is not sufficient to afford the cost of traditional housing.
Persons or households who become homeless -- due to circumstances and the will to survive -- are forced to seek shelter: on the ground, on the street, in a tent, in vehicles, under a freeway, in a temporary overnight shelter, or in spaces that are abandoned, vacant, or unused.
The fundamental responsibilities of government are to protect public health, to assure the safety and security of persons and property, to provide the essentials for satisfactory living conditions with the potential to thrive; and to assure that all persons are treated with honor, dignity, and respect.
In the fulfillment of government's basic shelter responsibilities, and owing to escalating demand and the needs of unhoused persons, various types of both traditional and nontraditional accommodations must be considered.

Elements of Sanctioned Co-Governed Encampments / Settlements

Defining Co-Governed Homeless Settlements
Development Considerations
Layout and Design Considerations
Operations of Co-Governed Settlements
Community Agreements and Internal Facilitation
Functions of the Contract Manager
Functions and Authorizations of the City

A. Co-Governed (or Self-Governed) Homeless Settlements
(This document will use the United Nations recommended term “Settlements” instead of “Encampments”) Co-Governed Settlements are efficient means of providing immediate, temporary, transitional, transitory, or semi-permanent shelter for persons experiencing homelessness. By requiring minimal publicly-provided administration, successful, sanctioned co-governed settlements offer significant economic benefits for the city while increasing the self-worth, dignity, and quality of life for the unhoused.
A Sanctioned Co-Governed Settlement is an assembly of tents, structures or vehicles established on publicly-owned or publicly-leased land or facilities, with the announced consent and oversight of the jurisdiction in accord with mutually developed procedures and responsibilities. Co-Governed Settlements function autonomously with a democratically elected on-site leader, or leadership cadre or structure that interacts with a City-commissioned Contract Manager. The Contract Manager coordinates intermittently with Settlement Leadership, overseeing up to 10 separate co-governed settlements and serving as the bridge between the Settlement Communities and City and County departments for services, needs, and communications -- at significant savings to the City in administrative costs.

B. Development Considerations
Decisions concerning site facilities, location, site amenities, site layout and design of Co-Governed settlements must occur through a fair, equitable, and democratic process involving settlement residents in coordination with the Contract Manager. The following suggestions derive from successful co-governed settlements, unhoused and community advocacy expertise, and a University of Berkeley case study and analysis (Ebert, Licona, Steinmetz 2020) commissioned by the City of Oakland, and considered as current best practices.
Suitable Facilities and Structures

Tent villages or pavilion assemblies
Alternative structure types, including small houses, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), converted containers, FEMA units & FEMA-type trailers, manufactured modular units, manufactured village complexes
Vacant or converted houses, buildings, warehouses, hotels, and motels
Unused or repurposed City, County, State & Caltrans properties, buildings, open space areas, and other suitable facilities
Acquired tax-deeded properties and leased private buildings and lots
Surplus school campuses, buildings, and suitable grounds
Acquired or leased parking lots and appropriate property easements
Vehicle camps in suitably located spaces along public streets, including dead ends and cul-de-sacs (An extensive draft of a HAWG recommended "Safe Parking Policy" is in near-complete form for a future release)
Appropriate combinations of these types

Preferred Locations

Areas with relatively level ground surfaces
Convenient to public transit
Reasonably accessible to services, conveniences, and destinations typically visited by residents, including but not limited to food services, medical care, program appointments, and community support
Sparsely used areas of large parks or undeveloped or cleared open space
One settlement per, and on only one side of an appx city block length.

C. Layout and Design Considerations

Objective: To display the appearance and character of a neat, orderly, unified community with coordinated types of structures and facilities
A rationally designed and planned layout that facilitates a functional and logical flow of activities.
Boundary enclosure with degree of see-thru visibility determined by residents
Accessible entry area with secure space for bikes and carts. And, if desired, a table or designated space for receiving donations.
Secure structure types or trailers are preferred. If tents are used, they should be high quality and provided with platforms of durable material under each tent.
Suitable sanitation provisions and trash collection schedule appropriate for the number of residents are a must.
Reliable provision and servicing of water and power, sufficient for needed lighting and charging of cell phones and devices.
If public utilities, power, and water cannot be provided, sufficient safe alternatives (solar panels or solar cells, water tanks and delivery, regularly serviced shower and toilet trailers, etc.) are a must.
At least one centrally-located, weather-protected, outdoor communal space, with tables and comfortable seating for socializing and/or receiving guests.
Where possible, indoor communal space should be provided.
A community bulletin board for posting messages should be conveniently located in the communal area
A communal area for food storage and preparation
The settlement should have a deliverable street address with a secure inbox (or inboxes) located near the entry for receiving mail, parcels, and deliveries.
Rubbish collection areas should be screened and be provided with large, wheeled dumpsters and rubbish bins, including recycle receptacles.
Rubbish and sanitation areas must be conveniently located for pickup and servicing.
Limited storage area adjacent to, or contained in each dwelling facility, in addition to a common secured storage facility with defined cubicles for excess individual storage.
Individual resident storage, if visible, should be limited, or be placed in adjacent storage tents.
Visitor areas must consider use by child-age visitors or relatives of residents in an environment where youth feel safe and cared for.
Activity area for pets.
Placement of, and regular servicing of pest and vector control appliances. The use of poisons is strongly discouraged due to potential threat to pets, negative impacts on natural predators, and worsening of vector concerns.
Adequate reserved areas -- on or off-site -- for intermittent administration, social service and health specialists, and shower truck and service vehicle visits

D. Community Agreements and Internal Facilitation
Successful Co-Governed Settlements are dependent on the promulgation of Community Agreements that are freely, robustly, and democratically developed by and with Settlement residents.
It is imperative that operation, governance, and facilitation processes of Co-Governed Settlements must center the needs, experience, and wisdom of the resident community. Authentic buy-in and self-determination of residents in developing Community Agreements is essential to success. Conversely, external administration and enforcement are contradictory to self-worth, individual pride, and group accomplishment.
The listed factors are best practice recommendations. However, each Co-Governed Settlement is unique. The Community Agreement that results from inclusion of selected factors will be developed by each resident group and will vary in response to the needs of each Settlement.
Co-Governance and Facilitation Policies to be Developed by each Settlement

The requirements, if any, for entry to the Settlement and for continued residency, (Low barriers are recommended)
Clear policy and procedure on how new residents may join the community
Policy on causes for removal from the Settlement, including harmful actions and behaviors.
Clear and well-defined expectations of Settlement residents
Opportunity for organizing and creation of resident committees by identity groups or affinity topics, including senior, youth, women, gender, LGBTQIA+, Indigenous or language focused groups.
Policy regarding substance dependence & use, dry & sober, mental affliction, belligerent behavior, etc.
Methods, procedures, and timing for democratic determination of Settlement leader or leadership cadre, or other means, and establishing respective responsibilities.
Methods of leadership participation, including regularity of meetings, discussion of Settlement issues and needs, achievement of decorum among residents, matters of governance, conflict resolution, and adherence to conduct and residency agreements.
Determination regarding gender equality and gender separation ... or not.
Application of Settlement rules and agreements, with provision for periodic review and re-endorsement of rules and agreements by Settlement residents.
Procedures and agreements regarding when to involve (or not involve) police.
Residents -- like housed neighbors -- must be free to come and go on their own schedules,
Agreements should include a strong policy regarding acts of physical violence among residents and pets, including how to respond to the incident and/or individuals. A mediation process and support are highly encouraged.
Agreements should include clear policies on visitors, including what parts of the Settlement can or cannot be accessed, expected behavior, and how to respond to breaches of the Agreement.
Settlement leadership tasked with service responsibilities are accountable to the Community Agreement, including coordinating with the Contract Manager on needs of the settlement, data metrics, and communications to, and with other relevant third parties.
Settlement Leadership has the duty to encourage and achieve relative peaceful cohabitation in the community, including adherence to Community Agreements, respect for housed neighbors, and cooperation in maintaining a healthy and orderly environment.
Settlement leaders are to be held to the highest standards of accountability, and are not to use their position to control residents or processes for personal gain.
Residents can propose how they would like to contribute to the community based on the gifts or talents they offer.
The community of residents shall determine if compensation to the Settlement leadership is warranted for performance of leadership responsibilities based on camp dynamics, and, if compensation by the Contract Manager Is agreed, the community should also decide if compensation should be in cash, prepaid cash cards, or other means.
Donated labor from community residents should not be viewed by the City or Contract Manager as a cost-saving measure, and where appropriate and agreed upon by residents and Contract Manager, stipends (not countable as income) should be issued.
The Settlement Leadership should be authorized, by community agreements, to communicate directly with OPD and OFD when deemed necessary, especially for safety and for protection against intruders, trafficking actions, physical and/or financial abuse, etc.

E. Functions of the Contract Manager

The Contract Manager is legally commissioned by the City to coordinate with Settlement Leadership and residents in contracting and coordinating services and utilities, monitoring successful and safe site operations, and collecting and reporting designated data.
The Contract Manager is the "communication link" between Settlement Leadership and residents, and City & County agencies, managers, and departments for needs, supplies, requests, scheduled actions, adopted policies, and policy interpretations.
The Contract Manager, in coordination with Settlement leadership, assures that all residents are enrolled in the “Coordinated Entry” program of Alameda County, and facilitates the occurrence of regular visits by appropriate “Continuum of Care” professionals and specialists, including attainment of applicable social benefits, housing searches, and housing placements.
The Contract Manager assures the scheduling and reliable follow up of service providers to the Settlement, which may/should include transportation assistance, rubbish pick-up, servicing of sanitation facilities, “Continuum of Care” visits, and maintenance, at least weekly, of sanitation, potable water, hand washing stations, needle collection, shower truck, and utility & power & services.
The Contract Manager provides communication technology to connect Settlement residents, including a paid cell-phone for use by Settlement Leadership.
The Contract Manager defines and offers a uniform schedule of cash compensation for Settlement leadership functions, and delivers agreed compensation or non-income compensation to Settlement Leadership and/or other resident roles on a regular, mutually agreed basis.
The Contract Manager respects the elected leadership but does not supersede Settlement Leadership and employs a communication policy of respect with Settlement residents.
The Contract Manager interacts primarily with Settlement leadership, not with Settlement residents,
As the Contract Manager's role is severely reduced from comprehensive administration of a single Settlement site to only oversight, monitoring, and communication, it is envisioned that each "Contract Manager Agreement" can serve up 10 Co-Governed Settlements.
The Contract Manager should partner with Settlement Leadership to coordinate quarterly open meetings of Settlement residents and the surrounding community, with invitations distributed within ¼ mile of the Settlement. Meetings should occur in communal areas in an atmosphere of openness, transparency, and mutual respect.

F. City Authorization and City Functions

The City administration will designate Settlements as "sanctioned," including the provision of needed stability and security for the Settlement community and the authorizing of needed services and oversight.
The City will develop a minimum "performance standard" (different from Housing Codes) for Settlement structures, accommodations, and facilities, based on safety, security, protection of public health, and least harm to Settlement residents.
The City should have a vigorous and active program of purchasing and leasing properties and facilities toward developing an inventory of, from, and among the broad variety of “Suitable Facilities and Structures” listed in Section B.
The City will coordinate directly with the Contract Manager to provide applicable, or available municipal utilities and services
The City will modify its liability policies to provide and finance blanket endorsement of Co-Governed Settlements and Contract Managers covering all of each Manager's Sanctioned Settlements.
The City may authorize quarterly “walk-through” compliance inspections by the Fire Department, coordinated with appropriate agencies for needed support, repair, and rectification.
The City shall establish a neutral third-party mediation capability for resolving potential disputes between Settlement Leadership and Contract Managers.
The City may perform annual audits of operations and performance of Sanctioned Co-Governed Settlements for record purposes and for developing recommended improvements.

16 MAY 2022
MID-CYCLE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE HOMELESS ADVOCACY WORKING GROUP (HAWG)

HAWG strongly urges the Mayor and City Council to expand current budget deliberations to include desperate needs of the 10,000 to 12,000 residents who reside unhoused in parks, lots, streets, sidewalks, and doorways of the City.

In May 2021, HAWG submitted an aspirational 2-year budget request ... that was not funded. For FY 22-23, HAWG submits selective needs together in a broad coalition including Oakland Progressive Alliance, Anti Police Terror Project, labor unions, and various community-focused organizations.

For the Mid-Cycle, HAWG submits requests for only 3 categories, and only the highest priority needs ... in anticipation of serious City attention and inclusion.

1. Increase The Supply Of Sanitation Provisions To Additional Encampments.

Last year, City officials estimated at least 150 encampments exist throughout the City. Not counted are about 60 unofficial RV / Vehicle stations in various areas and neighborhoods.
About 40 tent encampments and appx 10 RV/Vehicle stations are presently serviced by the City
Many unserved encampments and vehicle clusters desperately need Porta-Potties, hand-washing stations, potable water, large dumpsters, needle containers, and mobile shower-truck visits.
Wherever feasible, running water and solar power should be provided..
Each encampment and vehicle station should receive area maintenance and rubbish pickup at least weekly.
2 of 5 budgeted "Portland Loo" public toilets were recently installed. At least 5 additional such toilets are needed in strategic locations of the City.

2. Provide Additional "Safe Parking Sites" For the Growing Population of the Unhoused Who Reside in RVs And Vehicles.

For safety, climate protection and security against encampment closures (evictions), increasing numbers of unhoused people are choosing to reside in RVs and vehicles parked on City streets.
HAWG estimates that unofficial RV / Vehicle parking stations have doubled in 2 years to about 50 clusters currently. Only about 10 of the vehicular clusters receive minimum sanitation provisions.
At least 6 additional "Safe Parking Sites" are urgently needed to provide safety, freeing of neighborhood street parking areas, and clustering of vehicles to facilitate efficient provisioning and servicing.
For effective functioning, "Safe Parking Sites" should provide no-cost assistance with licensing, registration, repairs, moving, towing, as needed, and with clearing of citation records to enable resident vehicles to be mobile and street-eligible.
"Safe Parking Sites" should be provided with fire extinguishers, commercial waste pumping services, potable drinking water, highly qualified contract management, and regular rubbish disposal.

3. Establish Additional "Tiny House Villages" In Compliance With The City Council Resolution That Mandates At Least One Such Village In Each Council District.

Differing from the City's unrealistic "PATH" Plan to provide 10,000 units of permanent housing, a more rational and doable plan is to provide inexpensive, temporary, transient, individual "Tiny House Villages" with walls, roof, and lockable door, consistent with an "ACCOMMODATIONS NOW" policy and program.
Similar villages have been installed in Districts 2 and 3 under leadership of the respective councilmembers. At least 8 to 10 additional villages can easily be accomplished in the coming year, which will provide pride and dignity to the unhoused while being processed for permanent housing.
Installing "Tiny House Villages" is doable, immediate and less-costly than servicing 150 tent encampments and 60 vehicle clusters throughout the City.
"Co-governed" models (per HAWG's Jan 21 White Paper) offer significant efficiencies and savings in contract administration costs -- (One roving administrator can serve 10 villages).
Teens, single women, women with children, the elderly, and marginalized non-gender specific people are underserved populations that must not continue to be overlooked in the installation of additional "Tiny House Villages."
Women and the elderly are especially vulnerable to victimization. Licensed "security services" for needed safety and security should be provided for each village, while contract administration is reduced or removed.

OUTSIDE OF THE CITY BUDGET (Potential Grants From State & Federal Governments)
4. Prioritize City Acquisition Of Hotels, Motels, And Similar Properties For Use As Interim, Transient, And Transitional Accommodations

The City must acknowledge that the phenomena of homelessness -- which has grown 25% each year -- is a stable condition that will not disappear and must somehow be accommodated.
It is both physically and financially impossible for the City to produce 12,000 units of permanent housing affordable to the City's unhoused population ($27,000 Av HH Income), within the present century.
As Gov Newsom envisioned and provided funds for, hotels and motels (presently in economic slumps and available for purchase) are perfect facilities for the immediate re-housing of the unhoused population.
In coming months, Oakland is poised to receive huge, unimagined financial grants from federal and state governments. These funds should not be spent on items covered by the General Fund Budget (GFB), but should be devoted to otherwise unavailable capital purchases that provide immediate, dignified shelter for the unhoused.
Similarly, proceeds from Measures "W" & "Q" -- dedicated by vote for homeless needs -- should be specifically earmarked for the administrative and operating costs of purchased hotels and motels that can serve as transient housing the homeless.
Lake Merritt Lodge, Travelers Hotel, and the former Travelodge at E 12th & Lake Merritt Blvd should be among the hotels and motels prioritized for purchase and immediate use by the City.

HAWG welcomes questions or need for clarification of any recommendations of this Memorandum.
Please feel free to contact any Steering Committee member via [email protected], HAWG Advisory.

HAWG Steering Committee
Anita Bee
Janny Castillo
Candice Elder
Talya Husbands-Hankin
Mavin Carter Griffin
Lou Rigali
James E Vann, Advisory

Appreciation & Followup Recommendations to City Council and City Administration
from  Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG)
18 April 2021

TO: Libby Schaaf, Mayor
Edward Reiskin, City Administrator

TO: Oakland City Council
    LaTonda Simmons, Assistant City Administrator & Interim Homelessness Administrator
Jason Mitchell, Assistant City Administrator
Joe DeVries, Director, Inter-Departmental Operations
Sara Bedford, Director, Human Services
Lara Tannenbaum, Manager, HS  Director, Community Housing Services
         Shola Olatoye, Director, Housing & Community Development
Peter Radu, Assistant to Mayor on Housing Policy
Darin Ranelletti, Assistant to Mayor on Housing Security

SUBJECT: APPRECIATION FOR RECENT ACTION OF THE CITY IN OBTAINING
'LAKE MERRITT LODGE' FOR URGENTLY NEEDED  HOMELESS HOUSING

On March 22, following months of advocacy, HAWG and ShelterOak Advocates wrote an urgent joint letter to City leaders pleading for the City to acquire Lake Merritt Lodge, while the facility was still available. Less than two weeks after our letter, we were extremely surprised to learn that the City had already successfully concluded negotiations on the major objective of our urgent communication.

The Acquisition Aligns with Citywide Priorities
HAWG is most congratulatory in acknowledging the acquisition of the Lodge -- following that of The Holland SRO and Clifton Hall Dormitory-Shelter --  as the third praiseworthy action by the City to seriously acknowledge and allot major resources to the citywide-enveloping issue of homelessness.

The City's recent actions are solidly aligned with the preferences of the Oakland community. For the third consecutive biennial issues poll, the community has continued to acclaim "homelessness" as the number one issue of concern to residents citywide who expect bold and meaningful action, well beyond the City's typical care-taking activity.

Use of Lake Merritt Lodge
Of the Lodge's 92 rooms, many are provided with kitchens and baths, in addition to generous community kitchens, meeting rooms, parking, and sheltered exterior space. The Lodge is a historic six-story building, constructed in 1920, originally as a YWCA boarding house for “young working girls,” and later converted into a single-room-occupancy facility called the Lake Merritt Lodge. The Lodge was utilized as a shelter for vulnerable people, again particularly women.  An engraved plaque stating “dedicated to nobler womanhood” remains affixed to the building.

It is both fitting and appropriate that the Lodge be returned to use as a transitional facility for gender-inclusive females.
HAWG is continually aware of the deplorable violence, bullying, and unbearable situations faced daily by the growing population of single women, women with children, and female elders who are forced into miserable, predatory conditions as they live unprotected on the streets. As a demographic that receives little in gender-specific accommodations, such a perfectly-suited facility will permit establishing policies to improve quality of life and creation of pathways to affordable permanent housing, which is critical for reducing the harmful, life-threatening effects of homelessness on women and the families they raise and nourish.

As a transitional residence for women, the facility will be better cared for, more easily maintained, and the longevity of the landmark building will be better assured.

The Economics of Long Term Investment
HAWG strongly recommends that the Lodge be purchased -- rather than leased -- and be designated a permanent addition to City-owned transitional housing facilities. Realistically, homelessness will be a stable fixture of Oakland life for the foreseeable future. Before its negotiations were aborted, Alameda County had obtained a purchase price for the Lodge of approximately $21 to $23 Million. To HAWG, appx $21 Million appears to be a reasonable investment for a furnished, recently renovated, seismically-compliant 6-story facility that will serve a noble and needed purpose for many many years.

For long-term administration and operations, HAWG recommends that a portion of Measure Q funds be the dedicated source. Meas Q is an assured, reliable, and long-term revenue stream -- 30% of which was specifically approved by Oakland voters for the alleviation of homelessness. Again, Oakland residents, citywide, have repeatedly and strongly identified the alleviation of homelessness as the leading priority to be addressed.

Next Steps
Acquisition of Lake Merritt Lodge, in addition to recent purchases of The Holland and Clifton Hall, enhances the status of the City in addressing the recalcitrant ills of homelessness. HAWG sincerely appreciates these important actions and strongly hopes these acquisitions represent a good beginning ... not the end.

The horrors of the COVID Pandemic has been a major challenge to the City's public health as well as its economic well-being, Fortunately, COVID is also delivering unanticipated financial assistance to the City. HAWG urges that the City will utilize as much as possible of the unexpected new A.R. Act wealth, together with FEMA's reimbursement guarantees to bolster the City's homeless alleviating assets and resources to the maximum possible.

This should mean the immediate acquisition of The Travelers Hotel, and other hotels and motels as transitional facilities in order to move as many of Oakland's unsheltered population as possible from streets and vehicles and into brick and mortar accommodations. Transitional facilities provide needed protection from climatic elements, safety and security of persons and possessions, and easier access to wrap-around services so essential to being able to return to typical styles of living as rapidly as possible.

The recently renovated Travelers Hotel is superbly located and outfitted to become the City’s third transitional SRO ... specifically to house medically and mentally vulnerable, gender-inclusive elderly males in need of comprehensive services and a place to call home. The two single male tenants who have established tenancies at the Travelers Hotel should not be an impediment to its purchase by the City. HAWG suggests an easy solution ... that the existing tenants be qualified and accepted into City and County provided "continuum of care" programs and assistance services that are offered to incoming residents.

Failure to acquire this available and superbly fitting accommodation will be a regrettable and irretrievable loss to the City's potential homelessness remedies.

Please be assured that in the event of questions or need for clarification, HAWG is available to respond to any inquiries and will gladly provide additional needed information.

Sincerely Submitted

The Steering Committee and the Homeless Advocacy Working Group
Anita Bee
Janny Castillo
Candace Elder
Talya Husbands-Hankin
Mavin Carter Griffin
Lou Rigali
James E Vann, Advisory to HAWG Steering Committee

Response of the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG)
to the  Proposed "Homeless Encampment Management Policy"
21 September 2020

TO: Life Enrichment Committee
CM Loren Taylor. Chair
Council President Rebecca Kaplan
CM Dan Kalb. Pres Pro Tem
CM Lynette McElhaney
CC: Oakland City Council, Mayor Libby Schaaf, Oakland City Administrator, Director, Race & Equity

The Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG), after thorough review of the proposed Homeless "Encampment Management Policy," is grossly disappointed, and strongly urges its REJECTION by the Life Enrichment Committee, the Oakland City Council, and the City Administration.

The survey that preceded the proposed policy was badly flawed. It targeted mainly White homeowners who composed 60% of responses in contrast to only 14% from Black residents and persons subject to homelessness. The composition of the survey was heavily biased and consisted of leading questions based on a prejudiced condemnation of homelessness in the presumption that persons who lack "traditional homes" are a problem that must be contained, restricted, regulated, and criminalized.

This view fails to acknowledge that the unsheltered homeless are mainly households who were formerly Oakland residents, participants in the local workforce, and contributors to Oakland economic and cultural heritage who were forced out of their housing by runaway rents and housing costs. Dysfunctions that result from governmental systems that fail to curb unfettered greed in the realty sector, aided and abetted by a lack of housing production, totally sufficient for the need and unaffordable to the workforce. Homelessness is the consequence of regulatory neglect and needs compassion, support, and assistance to regain a foothold in its hopeful return to traditional life.

HAWG is puzzled about the ultimate result desired from the Survey. Already perturbed homeowners who took the questions literally and who later find that objectionable encampments are still flourishing are likely to feel ignored and misused, leading to elevated anger.  Different iterations of the Survey did little for coordination or for making responses easier. Moreover, the Survey questions did not permit explanations or nuanced responses. HAWG, however, inserted expanded comments where allowed representing the range of opinions solicited from the 200+ participants of HAWG ... None of which were reflected in the proposed policy document.

Introduction
The City's policies & programs for its ever-expanding homeless population are dismal failures (See the 28 March 2019 "Recommendation Report" of Hon Leilani Farha, Special UN Rapporteur on Housing).
   The admittedly under-counted "Point-In-Time" report registers an almost doubling of the unsheltered population every 2 years, yet the number of homeless who benefit from the City's re-housing programs remain minuscule with little or no improvement.   Designation of certain areas as "camping zones" echoes a neglected and misunderstood recommendation HAWG proposed to the City over a year ago.
   Success of such program is dependent on several factors: (a) first is "attitude": the use of "regulate," "restrict," "prohibit," all set an oppressive tone, as though homeless persons are to be controlled and contained -- a presumption that people who lost their shelter due to society's inequitable rules are to be criminalized, rather than supported and assisted; (b) other factors include size, location, convenience, management structures, amenities, democratic principles & practices, and quality of maintenance & servicing.

"Camping Zones"
The questions relating to "camping zones" generally derive from an authoritative basis, which makes definitive selections difficult. The humanistic basis that is lacking is acknowledging that unsheltered persons and households are in fact the same (82%) residents just the day before who were priced out, displaced, or evicted from their housing. And are persons who have the same rights to inhabit and share streets, sidewalks, public places, services, and facilities as any resident of the City.
   That unsheltered residents have the right to inhabit certain public space is settled law -- see 'Martin v Boise' --, which may mean accommodating to different modes of "order" in public spaces. Dignity, however, must always precede "order." Typically, a sense of order innately follows from a maturing of democratic practice.
    It is from this tenet that HAWG persistently urges the City to move to democratic self-governing of encampments -- much more efficient and immensely less costly to the City. Within such processes is a place for professional planning skills -- not forced from outside, but integral to the inception, development, and efficient functioning of self-administered sanctioned encampments.

Locating and Restricting Encampments
Fundamentally, "homeless encampments" should be interpreted simply as a different form of housing development and, with relevant exceptions, should be treated as rudimentary shelter settlements within standards that are flexible and adaptable. The survey questions primarily relate to how encampments are perceived -- i.e., how they "look" to neighbors and passers-by -- as opposed to how the encampments function, their efficiency, adequacy of health services, sanitation facilities, rubbish removal, and aids to elevate the quality of life. Factors of location should primarily concern avoidance of hazards to public health, and safety, and assuring the security of both the public and encampment residents.

Autos and Recreation Vehicles
As rents continue to skyrocket, for many who become "unhoused,." autos and RVs have become their shelter of necessity In addition to providing protection against climatic elements, vehicles in working order provide mobility for the many and various travels that are inherent to the unhoused population. The primary factor for RV & vehicular accommodations is location, principally because of the particular servicing needs of vehicle living. The current practice of applying the "overnight shelter model -- i.e., "in at 7pm ... out at 8am" -- makes no sense. Overnight shelters reclaim their donated space the major part of each day for cleaning, and re-arranging for typical daytime uses. No such requirement applies to so-called "safe parking camps," which require vehicles to aimlessly wander the streets all day for no reason. These spaces must allow 24/7 residence with minimal set-asides for maintenance and upkeep.
    HAWG has developed -- but has not had the invitation to promote -- a comprehensive approach to accommodations for those who shelter in vehicles in a manner that promotes the democratic development of community and collective assumption of civic responsibility.

Policy Elements Relating to Homeless Encampments
The "Encampment Management Team" (or its successor grouping) consisting of staff representatives of each City department that impinges on, or has responsibility for tasks relating to homelessness is, in theory, a potentially beneficial development. Having all relevant departments in one room at the same time can improve efficiency, communications, enrich vetting, and assure follow-up on major issues and tasks.
The defect of the EMT is its "insular" character. Department representatives may possess admirable professional skills, but the EMT in general lacks the viewpoint of Homeless experience of "street-smart" advocates as partners.  Each EMT meeting should have two "unhoused community representatives" in attendance as "non-voting" observers." The community representatives would serve as providers of supplemental and essential information, and as assurance that EMT decisions are not made in ignorance of actual conditions.
The EMT must adopt as its mission to provide for, to protect, and to assist the residents of homeless encampments to achieve the highest quality of life attainable.

The EMT should establish and maintain active coordination with Alameda County and intra-department cohorts; to remain updated on conditions and needs, of encampments, and to validate effective followup and responses to physical, social, substance abuse, mental, medical, and re-housing crises;
The EMT should serve as the clearinghouse for schedules of rotating services at encampments, including rubbish collection, shower visitations, sanitation servicing, potable and handwashing water supply, collection & replacement of needle containers, and assuring adequate inventories and delivery of needs and supplies.
The EMT should schedule periodic "deep cleaning" of encampments. Deep cleaning serves the need for vector and vermin control, environmental cleanliness, and protection of public health. Deep cleaning should be performed outside of, and around the exterior, but with minimal disruption or removal of tents and personal abodes.
The EMT -- with regard to "closures" of encampments -- must be especially mindful of adherence to 'Martin v Boise,' and must not evacuate homeless persons or households without adequate and suitable relocation destinations.  For this purpose, City-owned hotel/motel rooms or other adequate facilities should have standby capacity. Assistance and transportation to-and-fro must be a required service of any closure action.
The EMT must review, test, and modify policies and procedures for removal, storage, and return of confiscated personal property and vehicles. Despite the words contained in the existing policy, actual practice is totally at odds with written intent. Massive overhaul of both policy and practice is an urgent mandate.
When the "self-administration" system of sanctioned encampments is instituted, the EMT should assign a staff liaison as the central contact with each "Encampment Captain." To facilitate open communications between the Captain and its liaison, a City-supported cell phone should be provided to each Captain for regular, general status reporting and problem-solving.

Finally, the enactment of new "Encampment Management Policies" should -- for the time being -- be put "On Hold." Implementation of the approved "Homeless Commission" is in process. Mayor Schaaf has announced that appointment of commissioners is anticipated to be completed by November. One of the ballot-delegated responsibilities of the Homeless Commission is "review, modification, and oversight of "Encampment Management Policies and the Encampment Management Team.
Accordingly, WHY NOW ? This set of highly questionable policies are properly the domain of the new Commission.
Why start the Commission with a heavy bag of "just enacted" objectionable and questionable policies ?

The City and the community have tolerated the EMT and its practiced for some 3 years. The wait can be extended for 2 more months.

Steering Committee of the Homeless Advocacy Working Group
Talya Husbands-Hankin
Candace Elder
Anita Bee
Janny Castillo
Lou Rigali
Mavin Carter Griffin

Response to the Homeless Encampment Policy Survey by the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG)   3 July 2020

The Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG), after a thorough review of the "Encampment Management Policy Survey" document, is disappointed that the survey -- which appears to be a rework of a badly biased questionnaire previously presented in February/early March -- continues to advance a biased condemnation of homelessness. Although the survey is now expanded to include qualitative responses, the questions are essentially the same in their presumption that persons who lack "traditional homes" are a problem that must be contained, restricted, regulated, and criminalized.

This view fails to acknowledge that the unsheltered homeless are mainly households who were formerly Oakland residents, participants in the local workforce, and contributors to Oakland economic and cultural heritage who were forced out of their housing by runaway rents and housing costs. Dysfunctions that result from governmental systems that fail to curb unfettered greed in the realty sector, aided and abetted by a lack of housing production, sufficient for the need and affordable to the workforce. Homelessness is the consequence of regulatory neglect and needs compassion, support, and assistance to regain a foothold in its hopeful return to traditional life.

HAWG finds that the phrasing of many of the Survey questions make answering difficult. Many are "leading questions" intended to elicit a predetermined response, dismissive of the subtleties and actual conditions that are encountered. Several questions require a "depends on ... " answer, or an answer with an explanation, which the form and format of the Survey do not permit

HAWG is puzzled regarding the ultimate objective desired to result from the Survey. Some perturbed homeowners who take the questions literally and who later find that an objectionable encampment is still flourishing may feel ignored and misused, leading to elevated anger.  Also, variations encountered in different iterations of the Survey did little for coordination or for making responses easier.

Because the Survey questions do not permit desired explanations, HAWG inserted expanded comments where allowed by the Survey's format. The inserted comments are repeated below for context. HAWG's comprehensive response to the Survey represents the range of opinions solicited from the Steering Committee and from the 200+ participants of HAWG.

Introduction
The City's policies & programs for its ever-expanding homeless population are dismal failures (See the 28 March 2019 "Recommendation Report" of Hon Leilani Farha, Special UN Rapporteur on Housing).
   The admittedly under-counted "Point-In-Time" report registers an almost doubling of the unsheltered population every 2 years, yet the number of homeless who benefit from the City's re-housing programs remain minuscule with little or no improvement.   Designation of certain areas as "camping zones" echoes a neglected recommendation HAWG proposed to the City over a year ago.
   Success of such program is dependent on several factors: (a) first is "attitude": the use of "regulate," "restrict," "prohibit," all set an oppressive tone, as though homeless persons are to be controlled and contained -- a presumption that people who lost their shelter due to society's inequitable rules are to be criminalized, rather than supported and assisted; (b) other factors include size, location, convenience, management structures, amenities, democratic principles & practices, and quality of maintenance & servicing.

"Camping Zones"
These questions generally derive from an authoritative basis, which makes definitive selections difficult. The humanistic basis that is lacking is acknowledging that unsheltered persons and households are in fact the same (82%) residents of the day before they were priced out, displaced, or evicted from their housing. And are persons who have the same rights to inhabit and share streets, sidewalks, public places, services, and facilities as any resident of the City.
   That unsheltered residents have the right to inhabit certain public space is settled law, the consequence of which may mean different modes of "order" in the public square. Dignity, however, must always precede "order," yet a sense of order innately follows from a maturing of democratic practice.
    It is from this tenet that HAWG persistently urges the move to democratic self-governing of encampments.   Within such processes is a place for professional planning skills -- not forced from outside, but integral to the inception, development, and efficient functioning of self-administered sanctioned encampments.

Locating and Restricting Encampments
Fundamentally, "homeless encampments" should be interpreted simply as a different form of housing development and, with relevant exceptions, should be treated as rudimentary shelter settlements within standards that are flexible and adaptable. The survey questions primarily relate to how encampments are perceived -- i.e., how they "look" to neighbors and passers-by -- as opposed to how the encampments function, their efficiency, adequacy of health services, sanitation facilities, rubbish removal, and aids to elevate the quality of life. Factors of location should primarily concern avoidance of hazards to public health, and safety, and assuring the security of both the public and encampment residents.

Autos and Recreation Vehicles
As rents continue to skyrocket, for many who become "unhoused,." autos and RVs have become their shelter of choice    In addition to providing protection against climatic elements, vehicles in working order provide mobility for the many and various travels that are inherent to the unhoused population. The primary factor for RV & vehicular accommodations is location, principally because of the particular servicing needs of vehicle living. The current practice of applying the "overnight shelter model -- "in at 7pm ... out at 8am" -- makes no sense. Overnight shelters must reclaim their donated space for cleaning, and re-arranging for its typical daytime use. No such requirement applies to so-called "safe parking camps," which require vehicles to aimlessly wander the streets all day for no reason.
    HAWG has developed -- but has not had the invitation to promote -- a comprehensive approach to accommodations for those who shelter in vehicles in a manner that promotes the democratic building of community and collective assumption of civic responsibility.

..............................

After filling-in and submitting the EMT Survey form, a review of an earlier iteration of the form discovered an additional question with the opportunity to offer comments.
The question: "Do you have comments on policy elements regarding encampment(s)?:

Policy Elements Relating to Homeless Encampment[s]
The "Encampment Management Team" (or its successor grouping) consisting of staff representatives of each City department that impinges on, or have responsibility for tasks relating to homelessness is, in theory, a potentially beneficial development. Having all relevant departments in one room at the same time can improve efficiency, communications, enrich vetting, and assure follow-up on major issues and tasks.
The defect of the EMT is its "insular" character. Department representatives may possess admirable professional skills, but the EMT in general lacks the viewpoint of Homeless experience and "street-smart" advocates and partners.  Each EMT meeting should have two "unhoused community representatives" in attendance as "non-voting" observers." The community representatives would serve as providers of supplemental and essential information, and as assurance that EMT decisions are not made in ignorance of actual conditions.
The EMT must adopt as its mission to provide for, to protect, and to assist the residents of homeless encampments to achieve the highest quality of life attainable.

The EMT should establish and maintain active coordination with Alameda County and intra-department cohorts; to remain updated on conditions and needs, of encampments, and to validate effective followup of physical, social, substance abuse, mental, medical, and re-housing crises;
The EMT should serve as the clearinghouse for schedules of rotating services at encampments, including rubbish collection, shower visitations, sanitation servicing, supply of potable and handwashing water, collection & replacement of needle containers, and assuring adequate inventories and delivery of needed supplies.
The EMT should schedule periodic "deep cleaning" of encampments. Deep cleaning serves the need for vector and vermin control, environmental cleanliness, and protection of public health. Deep cleaning should be performed outside of, and around the exterior, but with minimal disruption or removal of tents and personal abodes.
The EMT -- with regard to "closures" of encampments -- should be especially mindful of adherence to 'Martin v Boise,' and should not evacuate homeless persons or households without adequate relocation destinations.  For this purpose, City-owned hotel/motel rooms or other adequate facilities should have standby capacity. Transportation assistance must be a required service of any closure action.
The EMT must review, test, and modify policies and procedures for removal, storage, and return of confiscated personal property and vehicles. Despite the words contained in the existing policy, actual practice is totally at odds with written intent. Massive overhaul of both policy and practice is an urgent mandate.
When the "self-administration" system of sanctioned encampments is instituted, the EMT should assign a staff liaison as the central contact with each "encampment Captain." To facilitate open communications between the two, a City-supported cell phone should be provided to each Encampment Captain for general status reporting and problem-solving.

James Vann

APRIL 15, 2020

TO:   Alameda County Officials:      City of Oakland Officials:
Richard Valle, President, Board of Supervisors Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland
Supervisor Nate Miley            Rebecca Kaplan, President, City Council
Supervisor Wilma Chan   Dan Kalb, Pres Pro Tem, City Council
Supervisor Keith Carson Larry Reid, Vice Mayor, City Council
   Supervisor Scott Haggerty        Nikki F Bas, Councilmember
Susan Muranishi, County Administrator Lynette McElhaney, Councilmember
Sheng Thao, Councilmember
Noel Gallo, Councilmember
Loren Taylor, Councilmember
    Edward Reiskin, City Administrator

CC:   Colleen Chawla, HCSA; Zerlyn Ladua, DCDCP, Eileen DeGusman, CDA; Amy Shrago, David  Modersbach, HCHP; Joe DeVries, Darin Ranelletti, Bobbi Lopez, Lia Salaverry, Peter Radu, Maryann Leshin, Darlene Flynn

Subject:  The Utter Shame of Oakland, Alameda County, & the Unprotected Homeless in the Face of COVID-19

As a concerned and caring citizen and resident, when I reflect on what is being done to protect the homeless population avoidable death and the potent threat to public health of the region, I am shocked, ashamed, and humiliated by the abysmally low level of accomplishment in safeguarding this most vulnerable of the populations from the all-encompassing Coranavirus pandemic.

Today's blog post by Activist Cat Brooks about the City's and County's ineptness could not be more succinctly stated:
"It is overwhelming to see both the City and County’s failure in responding to our most vulnerable populations in these times. Allowing people to languish in the streets or in jails is absolutely unconscionable. Oakland needs to immediately procure the 6,000 hotel rooms needed to shelter people, even if it means procuring them in neighboring cities. Money is not the problem. The Federal Government will reimburse [jurisdictions] up to 75% for costs generated in a crisis. The issue is will. Our City and County governments continue to demonstrate that your station in life dictates the services you deserve. The massive outbreak at the shelter last week in San Francisco should be a warning to us all. We are next if Oakland [and Alameda county] do not act and act fast. Keep the pressure on the City Council, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Call, email, tweet … whatever to let them know that we expect and demand that the safety of ALL Oaklanders be protected at this time ..."

Perhaps SF's scare became too real, but San Francisco's response puts our city and county to miserable shame. Early this week, it was reported that San Francisco had placed 400 homeless into hotel rooms. Today, the morning news reported that the SF Board of Supervisors authorized the procurement of an additional 8000 rooms for the immediately sheltering of that city's homeless population.

The contrast of San Francisco with the accomplishments to date of Oakland and Alameda County is utterly shameful. On Monday, after 3 weeks of effort, it was reported that appx 30 or so homeless persons (of a population of 9,000 to 12, 000) had been placed in the 4000+ hotel rooms that are vacant and available for placement. The Homeless Advocacy Working Group has transmitted several appeals for urgent action ... yet all were seemingly ignored.

The most modest observation I can muster to describe the vast difference between the 2 sister counties is: "Something is horribly wrong with how things are being done in Oakland and Alameda County."

Any lawmaker who does not bother to make some noise, demonstrate genuine concern, call people to account, and immediately demand a full reporting, expose, and short-term orders for correction raises serious questions about the role of policymakers and whether they may have failed their constituents.

As a loyal citizen and caring resident, I wait to witness my policymakers immediately STEP UP and DO SOMETHING, NOW !

James E Vann AIA, Advisory to the
Oakland Homeless Advocacy Working Group

TO: Friends-Advocates-Supporters of Justice for Tenants and for Homeless
(Oakland City Council Meeting March 27, report by James Vann)

City Council met in a 3 Hr+ historic 'virtual' (online thru Zoom) session and approved three (3) homeless and (tenant) related measures.
All the measures passed unanimously and became effective immediately.

1. Moratorium on Evictions Ordinance ... prevents evictions, displacement, & late fees for currently-housed residents & small businesses ... who are unable to pay rent due to and during the Coronavirus Pandemic. No deadline is specified for the "Moratorium" except May 31 for commercial uses. On first having access to the proposed ordinance, a set of questions was sent by OTU to the sponsors listing defects in the proposed ordinance. Most of OTU's recommendations were amended into the final ordinance as adopted. During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the ordinance prohibits rent increases, late fees, residential & commercial evictions, and leaves open possible application to units protected by AB-1482. (Today Gov Newsom issued a statewide "Moratorium of Evictions" effective to May 31.)

2. Prohibition on "sweeps" (evictions) of encampments and vehicles used for habitation unless individual housing units or alternative shelter is provided. The measure also recommends CDC guidelines to limit the spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease, like tent spacing, hygiene facilities and 24-Hr toilet access, and handwashing apparatus for encampments of more than 10 people.

3. Requesting the City Administrator to acquire additional buildings, facilities, and supplies per the CDC guidelines for aid and housing for homeless residents ... and to seek reimbursement from the federal government.

4. Waives advertising and bidding requirements for City Administrator to award contract(s) for trash collection services for all homeless encampments ... and authorizes the City Administrator to seek reimbursement for costs from the federal government.

It is unarguable that these actions by City Council are directly related to the demands HAWG has continually advocated and fought for over 2 years, including HAWG's budget requests; HAWG's meeting with Peter Radu, Mayor Schaaf's new Homeless Advisor; and HAWG's "Alternative Plan" to the City's proposed PATH Plan.

22 March 2020

Measure Q -- A Primary Ballot Success !!
As of March 18, all Alameda County ballots have been counted, and Measure Q passed with over 2/3 of those voting "yes" (66.7% required for passage).
Yes ..... 89,339 votes ..... 68.08 %
No ....... 41,892 votes ..... 31.92 %

The total of the funds -- 30% of taxes collected from "Measure Q" will augment the revenue to be collected from "Measure W" ("vacant property tax" passed in 2017) -- are specifically designated for homeless programs and services as determined by the (soon to be established) Homeless Commission.
-- 63% of Meas Q funds for Maintenance and Upkeep of the City's Parks and Recreation Centers
-- 30% for Homeless Programs and Needs
-- 5% for Stormwater Quality Improvements
-- 2% (appx) for Administration and Bi-Annual Audits

VOTE No of Votes Cast% of Votes
Yes89,33968.08
No41,89231.92
HAWG declined the opportunity to participate in developing the terms and provisions of the ballot measure, and took no position on whether to endorse.

James Vann, Advisory Member
to HAWG Steering Committee

Policies approved and requested by the Homeless Advocacy Working Group particularly throughout the current Coronavirus pandemic include:

HAWG demands:
1. The immediate end to "sweeps" and "encampment evictions." (Where can an evicted homeless person or household "go" except to be further "exposed" ?)
2. Immediate sanitation provisions -- Porta Potties, drinking water, hand washing, needle collection, weekly mobile shower visits & trash pickup -- for each encampment of 4 tents/enclosures or 6 persons.
3. Prepare and open to unhoused persons city-owned vacant or unused structures, warehouses, and useable facilities to provide weather-protected accommodations.
4. Open up vacant lots and designated curb areas for "free'" 24/7 safe parking facilities for unsheltered persons who reside in vehicles.
5.   Immediately discontinue "ticketing." "towing," or "citations" to unsheltered persons or their vehicles for non-criminal incidents.
6. Request Alameda County to drop court appearances for unhoused persons.
7. Prepare & make ready facilities adequate for "quarantining," "treatment" and housing of unhoused persons who show or are diagnosed with Corvid-19 symptoms.
   (Thank God that Oakland has been blessed to not have had to face such a calamity up to now ... but the inevitable MUST NOT be ignored.
8. Assure that each unhoused person is accorded "Coordinated Entry" intake, and "Continuum of Care" services, visits, treatments, followup.
9. Provide a "roaming jitney" service to assist encampment occupants with rides to appointments, food, stipend-pickup, and other transit-related needs.
10.  Request Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) to expedite awarding "Section 8" vouchers to each elderly and disabled unsheltered persons, and have OHA move them on a priority basis into permanent housing.
11. Designate, prepare, and open 24/7 facilities for "youth only" and "women only" habitations.
12. Plan, provide for, and implement "semi-governed" encampments at appropriate locations throughout the city.

James E Vann, Advisory to
HAWG Steering Committee

Alternative Proposal from the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG)
to Replace Oakland's “PATH Plan” Presented at L.E. Committee's
December 4 Special Meeting on “Homelessness in Oakland”

On Wednesday, 4 Dec 2019, the Life Enrichment Committee of City Council held a special meeting to receive a presentation by Human Services Dept officials of the proposed PATH Homelessness Plan.

The PATH Plan ('Permanent Access To Housing' Plan), developed through an elaborate process over the past year or so, is intended as the City's official strategic policy and program for treating, combatting, and ending homelessness throughout the City -- currently, and into the future.

The Human Services Department is complimented for putting together its voluminous report and underlying research. The "special scheduled" public meeting of December 4 had the stated purpose to hear from the public on the issue of homelessness. In actuality, however, over 3 hours of public speakers on the real needs of Oakland's unsheltered epidemic were seemingly for naught. At the end of the lengthy staff presentation, the hundreds of speakers who poured out the pains of homelessness and how the PATH Plan’s well-worn recommendations and typically bureaucratic report will not effectively address nor even touch the real problems of the streets and the unhoused, were shown that their concerns did not matter. Not one problem, proposal, or recommendation from the public received a nod, question, or reference from any of the CED members.

Instead, at the end of the public’s comments, the Committee Chair presented a pre-arranged, pre-worded motion approving the PATH Plan. And despite the volume of public critiques, objections, and recommendations, the Committee forwarded the heavily criticized PLAN to City Council on the "consent calendar" for single vote approval and adoption -- essentially locking out any opportunity for additional discussion or reconsideration.

Summary of the PATH Plan Report

The PATH Plan is a voluminous document that identifies, diagrams, proposes, and costs-out anti-homelessness programs for possible implementation. In summary, the Path Plan details the few programs the City currently implements and attempts to expand these same programs to serve a somewhat broader number of unhoused persons. In the Plan, Human Services documents the current assortment of anti-homeless programs -- including overnight shelter beds; four (4) 'Tough Sheds' villages of 20 sheds each; two (2) safe parking lots; sanitation facilities and rubbish removal services at a limited number of informal tent encampments; purchase and managing of 1 of 2 city-owned SRO hotels; funding an anti-displacement program; overseeing approximately 4 third-party contracts to manage Tuff Shed village locations; operating HUD-funded "coordinated entry" screening at the managed locations; coordinating the internal Encampment Management Team (EMT); and administration by H.R. Dept staff of the combined operations.

Oakland's total of managed homelessness programs annually serve a maximum of about 500 to 600 unsheltered persons at a cumulative cost of $34 Million -- appx $2 to $10 million of which is the City's direct expenditure. Projected revenue for the PATH Plan is heavily dependent on supplemental funds from Alameda County, state and federal governments, and corporate and private donations. To expand the City's current operations to serve a limited additional population would cost upwards of $123 million per year, which will still not reach even a majority of the unsheltered population.

Homeless Advocacy Working Group Response

In view of the L.E. Committee's dismissal of community input and the failure of Oakland's current approach to make progress on the subject of homelessness, HAWG voted to respond to the PATH report.
HAWG's Qualification To Design A Counter-Proposal To The PATH Plan

HAWG has brought together a broad spectrum of the community based on the common goal of eliminating homelessness in Oakland. Participants come from non-profits, community groups, unhoused persons, entrepreneurs, housing specialists, and community advocates who have worked collectively for over 2 years to distill their varied expertise and experience into the solutions we have been promoting to the city, and which are outlined below. These solutions are proven and have demonstrated success either in our own communities or in other communities dealing with this issue.

The PATH Plan Continues The City's Current Ineffective And Insufficient Anti-Homelessness Programs With Funding That Is Both Uncertain And Grossly Insufficient

As can be anticipated, with such a massive population of need, a minimalist program, and an out-of-control rental housing system, Oakland's homeless population will continue to explode. HUD's Point-in-Time survey reports that Oakland's 2019 unsheltered street population numbers 4,017 persons – admittedly an undercount. Even so, 4,017 unhoused persons is a 47% increase over the 2017-2019 count, which was a 29% increase over the 2015-2017 count. Unofficially, the Homeless Advocacy Working Group estimates that appx 9,000 people (and growing daily) are currently unsheltered and on the street, and occupy at least 90 -100 informal tent and vehicle encampments scattered throughout the city. Less than 20% of the unsheltered population are supplied by the city with minimal sanitation facilities and trash removal services.

The city's current approach to reducing homelessness is completely insufficient, and lacks the funding to meet the need it projects in the Plan. Current programs affect fewer than 2000 people in a year, or less than half the homeless population if using the city's numbers, and less than a quarter if using HAWG’s numbers. With people becoming homeless at an alarming rate, the city's current and projected plans are nowhere near the scale of the growing need.

For this small portion of the homeless population and its needs, the city is spending approximately $34 million per year. The PATH Plan admits that current funding is neither permanent or long term, and that actual funding needs to at least quadruple annually to meet its own 5-year objectives which very likely fall far short of future needs.

The City's Programs Are Too Narrowly Focused And Are Based On A Set Of Misconceptions About Ending Homelessness That Must Be Debunked

Building "affordable housing" is not the solution to homelessness since such housing is not affordable to those in most need and, besides it requires years to produce. "Affordable housing" (at 60% to 100% AMI -- $74,340 to $111,700) is needed for the middle-class, and can be profitably produced by both nonprofit and for-profit developers with varying levels of public subsidy. Alternatively, "deeply affordable housing" (at 20% & below to 50% AMI -- $23,240 & less to $61,950) is "homeless housing," which cannot be produced by market developers, and which, for nonprofit developers, require HUD Section 8 vouchers and unusually high levels of public subsidy – all of which are practically unavailable. In addition to huge production costs ($500 to $700/sq ft), traditionally constructed housing requires 3 to 5 years from conception to occupancy.

-- Alternatively, the need for the provision of “homeless habitations” is "immediate": Every person needs an enclosure with a roof. These can include re-housing, immediate shelters, temporary enclosures, tiny houses, sanctioned tents and sheds villages, FEMA trailers, and other off-the-shelf technologies which must become the priority focus for the unsheltered.

Providing huge numbers of "shelter beds" is NOT a solution to homelessness. "Overnight only" shelter beds provide useful protection against inclement and severe weather. However, what does a mother with three children do from 7am to 7pm when the overnight shelter is not available ? Persons lucky enough to line up in time to obtain beds for successive nights is a crap-shoot and is highly stressful. Additionally, how can a dweller’s tents, animals, shopping carts, storage, and personal possessions be secured while the occupant is away for just the night ?

-- The provision of "shelter facilities" must prioritize "year-round," and “23/7” shelter beds … (23-hours to allow 1-hour of non-occupancy for cleaning).

The homeless who are elderly, disabled, youth, women, families and women with children, LGBTQ, previously incarcerated, and persons with mental, drug, or special needs are not typically included in homelessness planning

-- Special attention must always be prioritized to assure that equity concerns and needs of these marginalized groups are integral to plan formation and implementation.

Homelessness is NOT a crime. All forms of criminalization, harassment, intimidation, preying, stalking, disturbing, stopping, towing, ticketing, imprisoning, or difference in treatment cannot be tolerated and must immediately cease. Unnecessary citations or detention only makes 'bad matters" worse. The homeless have less money, limited mobility, and are least able to travel back and forth for law-related bureaucratic procedures.

-- All persons, regardless of dress, physical appearance or carriage must be treated with the same degree of dignity, courtesy, and respect as is accorded the city's highest official.
-- Special training and monitoring must be built-into the orientation of those with authority who interact with homeless populations. Detention must always be the least option and last resort.

“Sweeps" of encampments exacerbate the problems of homelessness in their violent destruction of tentative communities, in demolishing handmade shelter structures, in confiscating personal belongings only wreaks havoc. It is inhumane to abuse people this way when no other place or plan for them is being presented.

-- Forcing people out of areas where they are not wanted does not solve the problems of homelessness. No one should be moved or removed from their location without a place to go, without consent to go, and without assistance to relocate. All due care and respect must be afforded to each person and each threatened community.

The City is alone in solving it’s homelessness problem …

-- For Oakland residents. the number one issue of the day is “homelessness.” It is true that many want homeless people and the homelessness epidemic to just disappear, but also, many want to help and have ideas and resources to contribute, as is evidenced every day in actions by housed people all over the city helping their unhoused neighbors in a variety of ways. These good works should be encouraged and supported.

To solve the issues of homelessness require much more money and resources than the city has access to. Accordingly, only small tasks should be undertaken.

-- Partial solutions that are not of the scale of the problem are both ineffective and costly per persons served, and have failed to reduce the ever expanding need.
If Oakland Seriously Desires To Achieve the Goals Of The PATH Plan, The City's Approach To Anti-Homelessness Must Drastically Change.
The City's present approach to combatting and ending homelessness might be paraphrased as: "We will continue to implement the same programs that have had little or minimal impact, however, in order to reach more people and still have only minimum impact, the amount of money to be budgeted must be quadrupled."
Conversely, HAWG compliments the City’s current “Keep Oakland Housed” and “Tenant Eviction Prevention” programs. The unquestioned and unanimously endorsed preferred antidote to homelessness is prevention. The first thousand homeowners and tenants who received temporary legal, financial, and technical assistance of the City and consequently remain in their homes or apartments are thousands less additions to the city’s unsheltered street population.
HAWG has assembled a collection of low-cost, near-immediate, community-friendly, quality housing solutions that -- with the agreement and support of the city -- can be readily implemented. Fortunately, the modifications that are needed are not difficult to implement, and as an added bonus, positive impacts and beneficial results will be almost immediately demonstrated. What is required is an atmosphere of openness to receive and consider ideas or proposals that may be a little different, and a willingness and fortitude to adopt new and different policies.
The FIRST TIER of HAWG-recommended programs effectively respond to the immediate homeless crisis within the current limited budget.

Change City Policy. Immediately convert City policy from "Housing First" to a "Habitation First" model. HAWG’s insistence that "Housing is a human right" does not imply that Oakland owes every resident their own home. What it does mean is that every person who lacks housing should be able to access "habilitation" that provides adequate protection from the elements and a level of safety, security, privacy, and dignity. Initial habitation provisions may be temporary or transitional, but must be obtainable within the financial means of the unhoused.

Basic Health & Dignity. For basic public health, safety, and dignity, the provision of water, sanitation, hand-washing, needle collection, and trash collection facilities -- including covered wheeled dumpsters – should be immediately scheduled and implemented for each encampment of four tents or 6 unsheltered inhabitants.
Auto- & Semi-Administered Shelter Villages. Identify and prepare appx 50 adequately-sized city-owned or leased private parcels, houses, buildings, spaces suitable to become identified as sanctioned "shelter villages." (Enact regulatory modifications, if needed.) Each village is organized into democratically-elected self-governing, semi-administrated units. The elected "village captain" coordinates weekly or sooner with its designated City administrator on village needs and relevant metrics. The “city administrator" is the contact between the village, the city, and relevant agencies. The “village captain” serves at the pleasure of, and for a term determined democratically by village inhabitants. Duties include encouraging adherence to agreed ‘standards of conduct,’ urging order and tidiness of and within the village, and interacting amicably with village inhabitants. The “village captain” receives a $100 weekly cash stipend.

The SECOND TIER of HAWG recommendations are additional policies and programs that could -- as funds are available -- effectively move the city in a continuing homeless reduction direction.

Systematic Assistance Services. Immediate entry of each village inhabitant into “Coordinated Entry” [including uniform, trackable database] and “Continuum of Care” services to assure that each homeless person and household receives intake, counseling, health, mental, psychological, addiction diagnosis and treatment, relevant registration and enrollment assistance, housing navigation, readiness, and referral for permanent and affordable housing.
Communal Space. Each village shall have a weather-protected communal space where social interactions and privacy consultations may occur.
“Space-Banking” for Homelessness. Institute a wholesale program of identifying, designating, leasing or purchasing of lots, houses, buildings, vacant warehouses, and similar existing spaces and structures appropriate for housing unsheltered persons.
City Purchase of SRO Facilities. Acquire as many additional SROs as possible to accumulate an available inventory of temporary accommodations for persons and households and many who may never be able to afford or transition to market housing.
Optionable Housing Models. Research and prepare for immediate ordering and stockpiling of available, tested, off-the-shelf economical “habitation” models, that may be pre-assembled, easily assembled, or pre-manufactured modulars. Assemble, mobilize, and allocate available financial resources to be able to offer each unsheltered household a suitable habitation model. A variety of such "off-the-shelf" models are available at costs from $3,500 to $12,000 each. and can be assembled on-site from 90 minutes to 2 working days. Factory-manufactured campuses for larger more complete communities – delivered and installed for immediate occupancy -- can be either purchased or leased at vastly affordable rates.
Homeless Rent Payments. Many homeless persons are employed and are otherwise eligible to receive monthly County-provided stipends of $355. Inhabitants of shelter villages can pay rent equivalent to 30% of income. Collected rent amounts shall be deposited into a fund that is equitably shared between village-determined needs and to assist in offsetting unbudgeted costs to the city.
Restructure ‘Safe Parking’ Programs. Revamp (in coordination with HAWG) the City's current "Safe Parking Programs." The revamped programs to be 24/7, and have 3 divisions: (a) off-street autos, (b) off-street vehicle campers & RVs, (c) on-street parking in designated, isolated areas, with special colored curbs. "Safe Parking" areas shall have marked, designated individual spaces, with around the clock occupancy, except when vehicle removal and return is coordinated with necessary cleaning or reorganization of the site.
In the interim Until the Homeless Commission. Until the Homeless Commission is seated and operating, a representative of HAWG shall have a non-voting "observer" seat (with voice) on the EMT (Encampment Management Team).
Strengthen HAWG-City Relationship. Renew the relationship of city officials with the Homeless Advocacy Working Group through a Memorandum of Understanding, which can demonstrate a mutual desire to participate, together with HAWG’s conviction to quality and usefulness of its contributions. Such partnership can be instrumental in the redirection of energy and resources toward advancing progress in the elimination of homelessness in Oakland.
Rescind Costa-Hawkins. It must be acknowledged that the principal cause of the “out-of-control” rental market is the State's 1995 Costa-Hawkins Housing Act. The Act’s elimination of "vacancy control” authorizes rental owners to unilaterally set rent amounts at any desired levels … without limit or oversight. Thus, C-H is arguably the greatest contributor to evictions, displacements, and gentrification. Toward returning the rental system to a sense of normalcy, Oakland should commit to helping form a consortium of local municipalities to lobby the State legislature for ultimate rescission of Costa-Hawkins.

Conclusion
Oakland's current set of programs to address the enormous challenge of homelessness in the city are not working to significantly reduce the numbers of people who end up on the streets having no adequate place to live. Current interventions by the City are extremely expensive per person served, are not at the scale of the growing epidemic and, over time, are unsustainable. The homelessness epidemic affects all communities and is fueled by circumstances that are systemic in nature that threaten the beauty and domesticity of the city’s many varied neighborhoods. Additionally, as the epidemic continues to explode, the public health and safety of the entire city and its inhabitants are put at risk.
HAWG contends that neither time or resources is available to hope for a grander remedy before the well-being and safety of our entire community is affected. The time is now that the crisis must be responded to with the tools and resources at hand ... though they may be somewhat limited.
The Homeless Advocacy Working Group is a wellspring of ideas, energy, and readiness to work with the city to help in applying these alternative solutions to the present crisis. It is the intent of HAWG that by offering these recommendations and alternatives, a new approach to this encroaching crisis will be beneficial, profitable, and healing to our beloved community and each of its inhabitants.

Adopted 10 February 2020 Homeless Advocacy Working Group

HAWG advocate James Vann honored at City Council, Feb 18, 2020

September 12
Proposal for County of Alameda & City Of Oakland to Use 3 Alameda County Properties for Essential Homeless Needs (link) endorsements updated September 16

Summary of Select Clauses of Council Member Nikki Bas' 20 June Followup Homelessness EMT Report & Action Proposals
(approved 9 July 2019 by City Council) -- that are particularly relevant to HAWG.

A. Councilmember Bas and the City Administrator agreed to the following over the short-term:
1. Hold a series of meetings over the summer between Councilmember Bas’ office and key partners from the EMT, including The Human Services Department (HSD), Public Works (OPW), Police Department (OPD), Operation Dignity, and others to further discuss the Encampment Management Team’s operations and the Councilmember’s recommendations.
2. Members of the EMT and/or City Administrator will join meetings of the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG) to discuss increased communication, operations and procedures regarding the City’s Encampment Management Program.
3. Implement a number of recommendations in the short-term, described below.

B. Councilmember Bas and the City Auditor’s Office agreed to the following:
1. Explore the scope, cost, and timeline for a full performance audit of the City’s homeless Encampment Management Program.
The following are potential audit topics:
• Cost of the Encampment Management Program
• Determine how many encampments actually exist in the City of Oakland
• Assess the quality of conditions at encampments
• Achieving goals and objectives
• Response time for 911, 311, and 211 calls
• Service data - How many served in encampments; the number that received permanent housing; the retention rates on permanent housing
• Assessment of the "bag and tag" process
• Closure notification process
• Best practices
• Quality of data around the encampment program
2. Coordination and partnerships with City departments and other governmental agencies
3. The City Auditor’s Office anticipates issuing a contract to complete this audit. The estimated cost of the audit is between $80,0000 to 100,000,
and once awarded, the audit should take 6 months to complete.

C. Councilmember Bas discussed with Joe DeVries of the City Administrator’s Office and Encampment Management Team:
1. Potential next-steps related to the previous supplemental.
2. Topics included stronger communication among stakeholders.
3. Short-term procedural changes to the Encampment Management Program.

D.   Oakland’s housing affordability and homelessness crisis is a top priority of the City's residents, as informed by the City’s recent budget survey.
1. the City's goal should be housing our residents.
2. And while people are living on our curbs, our focus should be public health and safety — the health and safety of unsheltered individuals and families, and surrounding communities;
3. And addressing sanitation, trash, and illegal dumping.

General Encampment Management Policies and Procedures

AA.   Encampment Management and Closures
1. Notices at encampments will be posted in other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese in addition to English.
2. Notices of closures and the posting of warning notices are possible in most cases, except where there is an immediate safety hazard. The city agrees with the general principle of providing encampments with specific issues to be corrected and giving advance notice prior to closure. This information would also be communicated during future meetings with the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG).
3. The city will explore having Operation Dignity provide transportation, bags, gloves, water, and other necessities during the move of encampment closures, but cited that additional resources may be needed.
4. The city will explore providing storage space for unsheltered residents, but cited additional resources are needed including staff, funds, and actual space.

BB   Providing Basic Services to the Unsheltered
1. If additional resources are allocated in the new budget, the City will provide services to additional encampments. Through meetings described above, the EMT will develop a proposal with stakeholders for serving additional encampments.
2. The City Administrator’s Office was encouraging of the idea of exploring partnerships to provide services and materials, such as fire extinguishers. This is an area that neighbors, volunteers, Councilmember offices and others can explore.

CC.   Self-Governance and Sanctioned Encampments
1. The City Administrator’s Office and Councilmember Bas agreed to work on defining what a self-governed and sanctioned encampment is, with involvement from unsheltered residents and advocates. This would inform the development of a pilot program if/when funds are available in the new budget for such sites.

DD.   Employment Opportunities for the Unsheltered
1. If/when funds are approved in the new budget, the City will develop employment opportunities for unsheltered residents, with input through the meetings described above.

EE.   Transparency and Accountability
1. The City will make public and available the City’s master list of encampments.
2. The City will ensure that the list of encampment closures online is accurate and representative, as well as the list of enforcement efforts taking place at previous encampment sites.
a. The City will explore posting notices in public locations such as the City Hall bulletin board and Main Library.
b. Notices shall be provided 30 days in advance for closures except when urgent Health and Safety conditions require a faster response and in instances where the City is enforcing a previously closed area that has become re-encamped.
c. Notices shall be provided two weeks in advance for clean and clears except when urgent Health and Safety conditions require a faster response.
3. During closure enforcements, the City will ensure unhoused residents are provided with adequate housing and service options via service providers when resources allow and via fliers-with-information, including-the 211 Hotline, Henry-Robinson Multi-Service Center, St VinGent-de-Paul, and other shelter options.

FF.   Other Recommendations
1. Several recommendations in the prior supplemental are not included above for short-term follow up because there either was not agreement between Councilmember Bas’s office and the City Administrator’s Office, or because they require a longer timeline and additional resources.
2. These items could be explored further if/when a high-level official on homelessness and a Homeless Advisory Commission are on board.
3. The full list of recommendations from the last supplemental report would be shared with the new official, and with the Commission

GG. Councilmember Bas shall schedule a report on progress at the Life Enrichment Committee to be heard no later than 3 December 2019 on Agreements and next steps discussed in the meetings between Councilmember Bas’ office and the City Administrator’s Office.

James Vann, Homeless Advocacy Working Group
May 15, 2019

TO:   To Life Enrichment Committee
CC:   Joe DeVries, Sarah Bedford, Lara Tannenbaum, Maraskeshi Smith, Mayor Libby Schaaf

In followup of the Committee's discussion of Agenda Item #4 yesterday afternoon (Report on the City's Homeless "Encampment Management Team" (EMT)), I think I represent the Homeless Advocacy Working Group (HAWG) as being encouraged that the Committee directed additional followup of certain EMT measures.

As was apparent in the public deliberation, there are huge differences between the rosy picture described by the staff report, and the actual experiences lived and observed by those with boots daily on the ground ... homeless persons and advocates. For instance, while the report seems to indicate that [all] encampments are provided with toilets, water, hand-washing, and trash removal services ... The EMT's bi-weekly posted schedule shows clearly that it is only the same 10 to 12 encampments that are provided and serviced weekly with toilets ... and that only the same 14 to 15 additional encampments are provided with cleaning and garbage services bi-weekly. Meanwhile, HAWG estimates that there are currently between 70 to 90 informal encampment site around the City consisting of 6 or more tents (or family units) ... the vast majority of which receive no services of any type -- a dangerous and impending threat to public health.

The City's major intervention remains its 3 "Tuff-Sheds" villages ... which, at huge cost, can "somewhat" shelter a maximum of 120 individuals each 6-months. HAWG recognizes that "Tuff-Shed" villages are one type of available homeless intervention -- however, as stated numerous times by HAWG, the "Tuff-Shed" model would not be high, if at all, on HAWG's shelter priorities.

At a total cost of appx $2M per year/per T-S village (not counting staff resources, which is huge), the T-S option is much too expensive and does not scale (120 of 9,000 homeless (est)); is inconsistent with the lifestyles of most unhoused persons; does not allow for children-family-pets-possessions; requires the permanent loss of an acceptee's alternative shelter or tent, and requires giving up of practically all of an acceptee's personal liberty.

Within a matter of days, the biennial "Point-In-Time" count for the coming period (2019-21) is expected to be announced. HAWG anticipates the count will reveal that Oakland's homeless population will have expanded at least equal to, and more likely will exceed the 26% growth in Oakland's homeless revealed in the 2017-19 count.

The importance of the Committee's concerns cannot be overstressed. Admittedly, staff does a huge amount of admirable work related to the crisis. However, if Oakland is to make a recognizable dent in its homeless epidemic, Oakland's current program MUST CHANGE DRAMATICALLY. To continue the City's present time-staff-money-consuming trajectory of a minimalist anti-homelessness effort in face of the City's continually exploding crisis would be less than forgivable.

HAWG has devoted almost 2 years of voluntary dedication to attempting to positively impact the City's homelessness crisis. Although predominately neglected, HAWG remains committed to doing all it can to ameliorate the burdens of the homeless crisis for the City, its neighborhoods, and the City's growing and disadvantaged unhoused community.

Finally, I forward the brief report of a recent visit to Modesto by an Oakland homeless advocate. The report "hints at" some of the benefits and huge cost savings of operating large "sanctioned" (and possibly "autonomous") encampments, where services, facilities, and administration can be concentrated for maximum efficiency, effectiveness, and least cost -- an option that administration has severally rejected for Oakland.

James E Vann, Member
Homeless Advocacy Working Group
............................

By Amy Farah Weiss
May 10 at 7:35 PM
Today I went on a tour of the Modesto Outdoor Emergency Shelter (MOES) that was led by the Stanislaus County Deputy Executive Officer, Ruben Imperial, and County Behavior Health and Recovery Services Manager, Doug Holcomb. The tour was organized by allies in San Jose who activated a 40-person Transitional Village--San Jose Hope Village —for 6 months for under $20K.
[At the Modesto site] 400 people live in 225 tents with garbage service, portapotties, handwashing stations, 24/7 monitoring of a secure gated perimeter with on-site security (requested by residents after initial safety concerns), coordinated food service [by] volunteer organizations, a smoking area, a grill area, meeting area, and operations/resident support provided by Turning Point—a mental health service provider in Modesto.
This model does not currently encourage or allow

Homeless Advocacy Working Group
Steering Committee Meeting with Mayor Schaaf (& Officials)
NOTES on AGENDA OF JOINT MEETING #6 OF HAWG WITH MAYOR SCHAAF (& ADMIN OFFICIALS)
Meeting Date: 16 January 2019
City Hall … Mayor’s office… 5:30 pm - 6:30pm
HAWG Attendees: Lou Rigali, Anita Bee, Talya Husbands-Hankin, Janny Castillo, Pastor Preston Walker, James Vann
Mayor & City Attendees: Mayor Libby Schaaf, Joanne Karchmer, Joe DeVries, Sara Bedford, Lara Tannebaum
The meeting began at 5:40pm.

Welcome by Mayor Schaaf, followed by a round of brief self-introductions.
*** James presented HAWG's objectives for the meeting as not to hear HAWG
make presentations on the Agenda issues, but to receive responses from Administration
to the issues presented in the Agenda (which had been forwarded a day in advance).
Mayor Schaaf then proceeded sequentially by reading each question aloud, and
answering or deferring to an appropriate staff member to respond. To each set of
responses, HAWG representatives asked questions or clarifications before proceeding
to the reading and response of the next Agenda issue.

1. What is the status of a new site (and when) will The Village Sanctioned
Encampment be relocated as directed by action of the City Council?
*** Joe DeVries stated that, at present, there appears to not be the need of a
relocation site for The Village Sanctioned Encampment.
*** The Miller Ave site, originally designated by staff (and approved by City Council)
for relocation of The Village was reassigned as the site for Tuff Shed Village #4 on
request of Administration at the Dec 11 City Council meeting. Joe DeVries justified the
Miller Ave parcel as more appropriate for the size of TS Village #4 -- initially proposed
for a vacant city-owned parcel at 3050 International Blvd. Installation of the Miller Ave
TS Village was reported to be nearly complete, with selection of occupants scheduled to
begin the next Tues or Wed, Jan 15-16.
*** Joe explained that HS staff conducted several interviews of The Village site
occupants in the two weeks prior, and of 39 remaining occupants at the encampment,
all except 2 expressed interest in relocating to the Miller Ave TS Village, where they will
given priority. Joe stated that with only 2 persons who might probably remain at the
23rd Av & E 12th St site, that nothing of The Village remained to warrant relocation to a
new parcel.
*** Conversations are in process with the Youth Employment Program (YEP) at
International & 23rd Ave, which has expressed interest in providing meal service to the
Miller Ave TS Village.
*** Joe also reported that sufficient private donations have been received to enable
proceeding with preparation of additional parcels for TS Villages #5 (btw 5th & 6th and
btw Oak & Madison), & #6 (close to Beach St near the Emeryville Target Store).
ROOTS La Familia Health Clinic will be the administrators. (It has since been learned
that TS Villages #7& #8 are also in early preparation.)

2. What are the City's plans to upgrade Wood Street? When will Toilets-Water-
Showers-Trash Removal services be provided?
*** Joe reported that currently the encampments are being provided with porta-
potties; trash is being collected 2 times weekly; and parked vehicles are permitted to
park without being cited. No changes are currently planned.
*** While several property owners in the vicinity are pressuring for the encampment
to be closed and for inoperable vehicles towed away, another property owner has
expressed interest in leasing to the City a large private parcel which could make
possible an off-street self-administered encampment and safe parking area.
Joe envisions that the lease offer would be short-term ... only 12 to 18 months.
*** HAWG representatives asked about the provision of water and -- In event that
the private lease is enacted -- what assistance would the City provide for moving
inoperable vehicle-homes onto the leased property. At present, no changes or
decisions have been made.

3. To address serious health and hygiene concerns, what is the City’s plan to
service all informal settlements throughout the City (estimated currently at appx
70) with sanitation-water-trash removal services? Where & when will the money
come from to make this happen?
What are the City's plans to locate, track, and service informal encampments in a
transparent manner?
What Plans are being formulated re hiring curbside community members to assist
in sanitation efforts.
*** The City continued to provide porta-potties and trash collection at the usual 14
encampments.
*** Mayor Schaaf provided 3 handouts:
(1) A 4-page survey of Current Health & Hygiene Sites (as of 1/15/19), listing 13
"Active Sites"; 1 planned site (long requested by HAWG at MacArthur/Harrison/Santa
Clara); and 7 sites & No Longer Active.
(2) A listing of 9 new encampment locations identified by Public Works that will
begin receiving porta-potties, wash stations, and garbage collection in Jan/Feb 2019
(see handout).
(3) A Public Works handout titled, Standard Operating Procedure (Policy for
Removal of Homeless Encampments in the Public Right-of-Way and on Public Property).
Includes a sample of Notice to Vacate Illegal Encampment; Guideline for Property
Identification; and Notice of collected Property; dated 2005, Revised 2013.
*** (Extra copies of the handouts were retrieved for distribution at the HAWG
meeting)
*** Cleanup at Lake Merritt area parks continues under the City's contract with
Downtown Streets; Homeless persons are recruited to assist with cleanup tasks for
which they receive gift cards. Oversight is provided by Talia Rubin (and 1 new staff
person) of PWA.
HAWG asked if the /city has an up-to-date count and locations of all Oakland informal
encampments. The City has no such record, and would welcome HAWG's
assistance in compiling such data. Mayor Schaaf noted that Gov Newsom has
indicated calling for an inventory of all public property in the state, which makes such a
survey and data collection very timely, Mayor Schaaf also urges HAWG activists to get
involved with the biannual Point-in-Time; count of homeless street-persons conducted
by EveryOne Home to occur this Wed night, January 30.
Since the PWA Policy pre-dates the Marin v Boise Decision, HAWG representatives
questioned whether homeless occupants were being criminalized. Mayor Schaaf
replied that the City does not arrest or ticket homeless occupants if shelter beds are
available and are accepted, and that the Court has certified Oakland's policy as meeting
the terms of the Decision.
It was stated that HAWG would like to discuss the City's interpretation of adequate
shelter; and that HAWG's view is that the provision of an over-night shelter bed does
not fulfill the Court's intent that adequate shelter means full time housing 24/7, not just
overnight. Mayor Schaaf stated that, between meetings, alternate views
and recommendations can always be submitted to her in writing.

4. What is the status of the City's plans for implementing Safe Parking
Programs and decriminalizing Sleeping in Vehicles?
Are official guidelines available ? Will the program be open to a range of non
non-profits, companies, and other providers?
*** Regarding sleeping in vehicles, ticketing and towing of parked RVs, the
mayor replied that meetings are in process with OPD, however, no new policy is
currently available.
*** Regarding Safe Parking Parks, Mayor Schaaf iterated that agreement and over
$300,000 have been committed to Rev Ken Chambers & the Inter-Faith Council of
Alameda County (ICAC) to establish and operate up to 4 Safe Parking Parks on
church properties. Sanitation-Water-Trash Collection-Waste Removal services are to
be provided in the program. As the proposed sites are active church properties, the
sites will be similar to shelters where vehicles must leave each morning and return the
next evening -- except when church services are scheduled. The City is also
considering establishing several Safe Parking Parks, where related services will be
provided and vehicles may remain stationary for prescribed periods. No potential
locations were identified.
HAWG representatives requested a copy of the policies and procedures that will
apply to Safe Parking Programs. None are currently available -- including from ICAC,
which is presently to develop and present such guidelines prior to implementation by
ICAC. The mayor stated that HAWG's assistance in developing policies and guidelines
for the Safe Parking Program would be greatly welcomed.

5. How will the City honor and apply the Martin vs Boise Circuit Court Decision
as it applies to the removal of settlements?
What is the City's current policy on confiscation (and destruction) of personal
property?
*** Mayor Schaaf referred to the policy paper issued by Public Works and replied
that the Court has certified Oakland's policy, that collected possessions are stored
securely and can be retrieved within 90 days by owners. Mayor Schaaf stated that not
much can be discussed about this topic because the City is currently being sued by
organizations associated with HAWG.

6. How can HAWG work with the City to have representation on the voter-
approved Homeless Commission?
*** Mayor Schaaf stated that it will be at least 2 years before the Homeless
Commission called for in Measure W will be considered; that funds will not flow from the
vacant property tax, will not flow before the third year; that procedures and methods of
notice, assessing, and collection are not in place and not being considered at present.

7. How can HAWG assist the City with outreach for current and new navigation
centers? Also, HAWG desires a transparent process for sharing of information,
documents, progress schedules, and information regarding homeless programs
and actions, with advance of noticing and communication of plans and
schedules.
*** Mayor Schaaf responded that Oakland does not have, nor use the term
navigation centers, that Oakland is committed to a "housing first" approach which has
the goal of getting people into permanent and stable housing; that the Tuff Shed Village
approach is temporary and is not a permanent part of Oakland's homelessness
strategy.
*** Sara Bedford & Lara Tannenbaum of Human Services reported that the TS
Village program is turning one-year in use, and that 70% of homeless persons taken
into the units have achieved permanent housing.
*** Sara & Lara reported that a recent RFQ (Request for Qualification) solicitation
resulted in 28 credible responses. The respondents are now being reviewed to
determine which will be selected and ultimately funded to implement various
homelessness programs proposed in the solicitation.
*** Mayor Schaff stated that The Holland (the 2nd Henry Robinson-type SRO
Transitional Facility) opened in December and is appx 70% occupied. The Holland on
Grand Ave near MLK was purchased with Meas KK funds. The facility will house 75 -
90 occupants. HAWG noted that it was not notified of the opening of The Holland,
which seems inappropriate since it was HAWG that proposed the SRO purchase and
worked for its approval.
*** Since the cost to purchase The Holland was $7M of the $14M City allocation,
HAWG asked if a 3rd SRO (as requested in HAWG's 2017 -19 budget statement) was
a possible use of the remaining balance? MayorSchaaf responded that the City would be open
to purchasing a 3rd SRO for homeless housing, however, there is the problem of ongoing
administration and operating funds.
The City requested the County to fund this need, but to date the County has been
not responded. The mayor stated that HAWG's assistance in approaching the County to
assume this financial need would be very beneficial.

8. Request to Maintain the 6-week schedule for the joint Mayor-HAWG joint
meetings. Setting the date for the next joint meeting.
(Due to the explosive growth of unhoused persons, families and the proliferation of
tent cities throughout the City, HAWG contends that a quarterly schedule for the joint
meetings is inadequate and strongly urges that the former 6-week schedule be
reinstated)
*** Mayor Schaaf responded that she also meets with several homeless-related
groups, and the pressures of her schedule do not permit the joint meetings with HAWG
more frequently than quarterly.
*** Joanne Karchmer, The mayor's policy assistant, will assure that a calendar date
will be scheduled with advance notice to HAWG of potentially available choices.

The meeting concluded at 6:50pm.

James Vann, Recorder for HAWG